Planning Appraisal Group - TrustNews July 17
During the Spring our panels have continued to see some slight reduction in the number of planning applications, some of which are for quite minor alterations whereas others may involve the demolition of one or more houses and replacement by several houses or even blocks of flats.
A recent case is that of 180 Greenhill Road, to which the Trust has objected, and it raises a policy issue. We agree that it is better both for Winchester and for students to house them in relatively high-density purpose-built accommodation rather than consuming more and more of Winchester’s conventional housing provision through conversion to HMOs (houses of multiple occupancy); we just did not agree that Greenhill Road is the right site.
It is the Trust’s view that there needs to be some former planning policy guidance about student accommodation if student numbers are going to continue to grow. The Trust has been supportive of the Clty’s implementation of an Article 4 directive which limits the number of HMOs in Stanmore, but this is likely to push the problem elsewhere. We think that purpose-built accommodation should be directly managed by the institution whose students will be housed, so that it is clear who should be responsible if nuisance problems arise. In our view, educational institutions should take responsibility for their impact on the City's housing situation when planning any increase in student numbers, and hopefully the City might work with them to ensure that this happens.
However, from the City's response it appears that their current stance is not to provide any more detailed planning guidance on the matter and is leaving it up to each educational institution to develop its own master plan, hopefully in consultation with the public. The local plan review process is due to start in 2018, at which time the issue could be raised, and meanwhile the City is considering whether to issue an Article 4 directive limiting the number of HMOs in Winnall and its surroundings.
The relevance of the local plan is apparent from rulings on a number of recent appeals, where in each case the appeal was dismissed by reference to the local plan, even though it was not quite in force at the time of the ruling. The Local Plan Part II is now formally adopted so we must hope it will be used to dismiss the appeal against the City's refusal of outline planning permission for a large housing development at Vale Farm, Romsey Road, Pitt. The appellant’s case is largely about how housing needs are calculated and as reported last month this may be standardised by central government. The Trust has written in support of the City's refusal. Since this land is outside the settlement boundary for Winchester, even if housing need calculations have to be revised, the question of where and how those should be met remains open; for example the Trust has long argued that the housing density in the development of Phase 2 of Barton Farm should be increased.
Finally, I wish to acknowledge the contribution of Julian Harvey, who has stepped down from chairing one of our review panels, after many years of service. We are very grateful to him, as to all our panel chairs and panel members who voluntarily take time out to review planning applications. Julian is replaced by Sue Owers. Our other three panel chairs are Arthur Morgan, lain Patton and Mary Martyn and they work in rotation to review the week’s applications.
We will shortly be meeting, along with Shione Carden, to review the guidelines used by the panels when examining cases, as well as the other planning- related documents available to Trust Members. If you have particular views on what you want to see in any of these please contact the Trust indicating that it is for my attention.